He is not religiously bigoted, he is worried about all dogs, not just non-Muslim dogs. He discriminated against the blind bloke because of his disability not because his of religion or lack thereof.

wrong...he discriminated against the victim because of his (the drivers ) religious beleifs

THAT makes it a religiously inspired hate crime.....

_________________If at any time in 2016 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up buttercup, cause 2017 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude

Difficile est meminisse officium paludes siccare , cum de nocte surrexeritis et asinus tuus alligators ....(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)

you couldnt establish a pile of poo in a toilet....which is probably why your brain case is empty

see...you make a LOT of empty noise but bring no evidence to bear....

which kinda proves MY point that you are indeed...TROLL

see...I have just proved you are troll....

empty pot and all that

you do realise dont you scrat...that you are as mad as a box of frogs

_________________If at any time in 2016 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up buttercup, cause 2017 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude

Difficile est meminisse officium paludes siccare , cum de nocte surrexeritis et asinus tuus alligators ....(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)

He is not religiously bigoted, he is worried about all dogs, not just non-Muslim dogs. He discriminated against the blind bloke because of his disability not because his of religion or lack thereof.

wrong...he discriminated against the victim because of his (the drivers ) religious beleifs

THAT makes it a religiously inspired hate crime.....

No it doesn't - in the UK a hate crime is defined as:

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender."

(The Association of Chief Police Officers and the CPS)

The taxi driver's actions were not "motivated by hostility or prejudice based on [the blind man's] religion or perceived religion" - it was "motivated by hostility or prejudice based on [the blind man's] disability or perceived disability".

It can be said to be a hate crime but not a religiously motivated hate crime.

since it was based on the cultural values of OUR society (ie acceptance of (especially) assistance dogs)

or could it be said to be racial hatred, (since again "our" race has the above acceptance)

becasue....if he didnt have the dog would he have refused him???

he didnt refuse him becasue he was blind per se but becasue he had an assistance dog..

and those idiots dont like dogs.

methinks you wish to split hairs in order to exculpate the driver

_________________If at any time in 2016 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up buttercup, cause 2017 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude

Difficile est meminisse officium paludes siccare , cum de nocte surrexeritis et asinus tuus alligators ....(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)

_________________If at any time in 2016 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up buttercup, cause 2017 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude

Difficile est meminisse officium paludes siccare , cum de nocte surrexeritis et asinus tuus alligators ....(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)

since it was based on the cultural values of OUR society (ie acceptance of (especially) assistance dogs)

or could it be said to be racial hatred, (since again "our" race has the above acceptance)

becasue....if he didnt have the dog would he have refused him???

he didnt refuse him becasue he was blind per se but becasue he had an assistance dog..

and those idiots dont like dogs.

methinks you wish to split hairs in order to exculpate the driver

He has admitted that he was motivated by his religion but that is not the offence here - as you (almost) say, he discriminated against the blind man's disability by refusing to carry his dog.

ah so now you are admitting this was a more complex case than is provided for in the simple guideline you quote as seeming law....

it was a religiously motivated disability hate crime

or in law terms it was a religiously aggravated disability hate crime...

where the term "aggavated" is often used as an "escalator" in the seriousness of a crime

as in the case of what may have been seen as a simple assault in fact becomes "racially aggravated" if a white guy thumps a black guy

well here we have a Muslim who proclaims his religion was the cause of his disability discrimination...

so its religiously aggravated disability hate crime

_________________If at any time in 2016 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up buttercup, cause 2017 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude

Difficile est meminisse officium paludes siccare , cum de nocte surrexeritis et asinus tuus alligators ....(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)

_________________If at any time in 2016 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up buttercup, cause 2017 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude

Difficile est meminisse officium paludes siccare , cum de nocte surrexeritis et asinus tuus alligators ....(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)

yes, the guy was not discriminated against because of his religion but because he was blind with dog. thus Ziz is 100% correct it is discrimination against disabled and that is much worse than discrimination against religion.

the Religion etc of the person commiting the abuse are meaningless under the Law, it is the status of the Victim.

AND LF stop trying top pretend that the driver's religion has anything to do with it under the law. Maybe thats the Problem YOU DONT UNDERSTAND the way discrimiantion works. What you are is irrelevant, why you beleive whatever you believe is Irrelevant, if you provide a service to the Public then you must not discriminate against any of the protected groups.

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

veya_victaous wrote:yes, the guy was not discriminated against because of his religion but because he was blind with dog. thus Ziz is 100% correct it is discrimination against disabled and that is much worse than discrimination against religion.

the Religion etc of the person commiting the abuse are meaningless under the Law, it is the status of the Victim.

AND LF stop trying top pretend that the driver's religion has anything to do with it under the law. Maybe thats the Problem YOU DONT UNDERSTAND the way discrimiantion works. What you are is irrelevant, why you beleive whatever you believe is Irrelevant, if you provide a service to the Public then you must not discriminate against any of the protected groups.

then maybe the law needs changing ?

_________________If at any time in 2016 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up buttercup, cause 2017 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude

Difficile est meminisse officium paludes siccare , cum de nocte surrexeritis et asinus tuus alligators ....(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)

If you can't understand that we have to be nicer to you since you are obviously Disabled

Maybe not....BUT

motive can and DOES inform sentencing

_________________If at any time in 2016 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up buttercup, cause 2017 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude

Difficile est meminisse officium paludes siccare , cum de nocte surrexeritis et asinus tuus alligators ....(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)

veya_victaous wrote:yes, the guy was not discriminated against because of his religion but because he was blind with dog. thus Ziz is 100% correct it is discrimination against disabled and that is much worse than discrimination against religion.

the Religion etc of the person commiting the abuse are meaningless under the Law, it is the status of the Victim.

AND LF stop trying top pretend that the driver's religion has anything to do with it under the law. Maybe thats the Problem YOU DONT UNDERSTAND the way discrimiantion works. What you are is irrelevant, why you beleive whatever you believe is Irrelevant, if you provide a service to the Public then you must not discriminate against any of the protected groups.

then maybe the law needs changing ?

I strongly suggest they don't need changing and have been purposely written this way Because it is Fair, Just and Non-dicriminatory in itself

If you where to Say, this person that discriminated against the disabled will recieve an different punishemnt due to their religion then the LAW would be discriminatory. All are equal under the Secular law, regardless of ones religion.

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

We know why he wouldn't take the dog, but it had nothing to do with the blind mans religion and that is where religious discrimination would come in.

Had he refused to take the blind man because he (the blind man) was Christian, then it would have been religious discrimination ie, he refused to take the man because he was Christian. In this case he refused to take him because he had a dog.

Probably the driver just doesn't like, or fears dogs. There's much talk about how Muslims find dogs impure etc. But the bottom line is that dogs aren't forbidden in the Qur'an and are used by Muslims as hunting dogs. I have Muslim friends who own dogs. It's just about personal taste. Not about Muslims per se.

Some black cab luvlee pakistani drivuz are not too pleased to use their ramp for disabuld userz wheelchairz..

I asked my OH about Muslim drivers refusing to take blind dogs.He has been retired now for 4 years but he knew of a few even then who would not tolerate dogs in their cabs. They got round it by having an exemption certificate, probably citing physical rather than mental reasons.

_________________My body is in Manchester (sometimes) my mind's all over the place (always)Happy now??

Some black cab luvlee pakistani drivuz are not too pleased to use their ramp for disabuld userz wheelchairz..

I asked my OH about Muslim drivers refusing to take blind dogs.He has been retired now for 4 years but he knew of a few even then who would not tolerate dogs in their cabs. They got round it by having an exemption certificate, probably citing physical rather than mental reasons.

And in reality , there should not even be those exemption certificates

IF you are doing a job which may require interaction with dogs then if you have a problem with that, be it fear or allergy...then the answer is simple....DO SOMETHING ELSE.

and beleiving in some barmey part of a barmy world view doesnt even come into it.......

_________________If at any time in 2016 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up buttercup, cause 2017 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude

Difficile est meminisse officium paludes siccare , cum de nocte surrexeritis et asinus tuus alligators ....(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)

Some black cab luvlee pakistani drivuz are not too pleased to use their ramp for disabuld userz wheelchairz..

You are a disgusting racist that hides behind our flag to punt out your bile, still I guess you're a protected species on here!

You make me so happy Mohammad Scrat with your insults, it only shows I am irking you by wanting to protect my island.If you only knew me then you would be ashamed for making yourself sound silly and completely ANTI BRITISH.

_________________LOOK AFTER OUR OWN FIRST.

Comment on that which I say, not that which you assume I mean.

RACISM MEANS PATRIOTISM WHICH MEANS YOU LOVE AND PROTECT YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

scrat wrote:You are a disgusting racist that hides behind our flag to punt out your bile, still I guess you're a protected species on here!

You make me so happy Mohammad Scrat with your insults, it only shows I am irking you by wanting to protect my island.If you only knew me then you would be ashamed for making yourself sound silly and completely ANTI BRITISH.

This beautiful island is inhabited by a diverse community, as it should be, the Union Jack flutters in the breeze from every corner of this globe, that's what makes this island and it's people so wonderful, we are the state of art nation because of our diversity.

Asian taxi drivers refusing to take a dog in their taxi seems to be all to common. They should lose their licence and the taxi comoany that employs them should be fined for failing to ensure that those they use comply with the law.

If the blind man had said to Uber - don't send a Muslim taxi driver because they won't accept my dog - the poor bloke would probably get prosecuted for discrimination.

Use Black Cabs, they're safer, better regulated and much more comfortable for a dog to travel in.

_________________The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly.

Irn Bru wrote:Asian taxi drivers refusing to take a dog in their taxi seems to be all to common. They should lose their licence and the taxi comoany that employs them should be fined for failing to ensure that those they use comply with the law.

If the blind man had said to Uber - don't send a Muslim taxi driver because they won't accept my dog - the poor bloke would probably get prosecuted for discrimination.

Use Black Cabs, they're safer, better regulated and much more comfortable for a dog to travel in.

My OH was a Black cab driver before he retired Irn....the same problem cropped up there too on occasion..

_________________My body is in Manchester (sometimes) my mind's all over the place (always)Happy now??

UBER was created by a slovenly bludging little gang of usurious Yanks to help a small minority of equally greedy and usurious private car owners to attempt to screw over taxi drivers, while attempting to dodge and avoid any relevant laws, regulations, taxes, licenses and so-forth that regular licenced taxi drivers and owners face daily...

I.E. the ugly side of unfettered American style "free market" thinking at its worse..People use Uber at their own risk.

_________________It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.Our life is frittered away by details. Simplify, simplify.The mass of men lead lives of quite desperation.Henry David Thoreau

UBER was created by a slovenly bludging little gang of usurious Yanks to help a small minority of equally greedy and usurious private car owners to attempt to screw over taxi drivers, while attempting to dodge and avoid any relevant laws, regulations, taxes, licenses and so-forth that regular licenced taxi drivers and owners face daily...

I.E. the ugly side of unfettered American style "free market" thinking at its worse..People use Uber at their own risk.

A buddy of mine drives for them, he said their founder is a big fan of Ayn Rand. Tells you all you need to know.

_________________"There's no map, shows where I'm goin' ... and I can't say, just where I've been."

YOU are the liar above all...with your idiocy about what I'm supposed to have posted elsewhere...

rejoicing at your non ban ...linky please.....

I'd love to disect your hyperbole....

and

once again you are running away from the difficult question...just as you always do....

you have NO principles or veracity whatsover....

you are a snivelling coward and a disgrace to your purported political allegience.....

NOW

what about this religiously bigoted taxi driver????????

You and Monkey boy rejoiced at my non pending departure, I don't have to prove your collusion because you've already done that for me, and I suppose theres only one outstanding matter and a question that needs some clarification is the fact that newbie Raggs, is a newbie?

Perhaps if you RW folk stuck to one identity it would make matters a lot simpler, but then I guess you'd have no where to hide.

As I've tried to assist you with this thread on several occasions, I feel any further comment would prove futile.

There's no clarification needed. You don't get to hassle me because you think I'm someone else. It's none of your business.

scrat wrote:You and Monkey boy rejoiced at my non pending departure, I don't have to prove your collusion because you've already done that for me, and I suppose theres only one outstanding matter and a question that needs some clarification is the fact that newbie Raggs, is a newbie?

Perhaps if you RW folk stuck to one identity it would make matters a lot simpler, but then I guess you'd have no where to hide.

As I've tried to assist you with this thread on several occasions, I feel any further comment would prove futile.

There's no clarification needed. You don't get to hassle me because you think I'm someone else. It's none of your business.

Why duz anyone NEED to know if Miss Ragga is anyone else????? I hope we are not going down the road of having distinguished membuz harangued on this issue.

.

_________________LOOK AFTER OUR OWN FIRST.

Comment on that which I say, not that which you assume I mean.

RACISM MEANS PATRIOTISM WHICH MEANS YOU LOVE AND PROTECT YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

Irn Bru wrote:Asian taxi drivers refusing to take a dog in their taxi seems to be all to common. They should lose their licence and the taxi comoany that employs them should be fined for failing to ensure that those they use comply with the law.

If the blind man had said to Uber - don't send a Muslim taxi driver because they won't accept my dog - the poor bloke would probably get prosecuted for discrimination.

Use Black Cabs, they're safer, better regulated and much more comfortable for a dog to travel in.

Good post

_________________The soul of a gypsy, the heart of a hippy, the spirit of a fairy